COMMERCIAL (BUSINESS TORT) / Plaintiff aircraft purchaser made out a case of negligent misrepresentation under Missouri law against defendant overhaul provider “for failing to log or disclose previous fuel tank repairs”. This was despite absence of any direct dealings between plaintiff aircraft purchaser and defendant overhaul provider. Rationale: Overhaul provider “had a public duty created by federal aviation regulations to disclose the repairs”.

Dannix Painting, LLC v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 2012 WL 6013217 (U.S. District Court, E.D. Mo., December 3, 2012. Free copy available here.

Cited to B.L. Jet Sales, Inc. v. Alton Packaging Corp., 724 S.W.2d 669 (Missouri Court of Appeals, January 6, 1987). Free copy available here.

Who is affected? Purchasers of aeronautical goods that are subject to the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 Code of Federal Regulations); service providers obligated to make records of service on such goods under Federal Aviation Regulations.

Dannix Painting, LLC v. Sherwin-Williams Co judge opined: “I decline to apply B.L. Jet Sales because the facts of this case differ substantially from those in B.L. Jet Sales ….”

“Plaintiff argues that Missouri courts created an exception for negligent misrepresentation in B.L. Jet Sales. In that case, the plaintiff bought a used airplane plagued by fuel tank corrosion. 724 S.W.2d at 670. The plaintiff sued the seller and the company that serviced the plane for failing to log or disclose previous fuel tank repairs. Id. There was no privity of contract or direct dealings between the plaintiff and the service company. Id. The Missouri Court of Appeals held that plaintiff had stated a claim for negligent misrepresentation against the service company despite the fact that plaintiff alleged only economic loss. Id. at 672. In reaching its conclusion, the court noted that the service company had a public duty created by federal aviation regulations to disclose the repairs. Id. at 672–73. The court also relied on the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 552 and negligent representation cases “from Missouri and other jurisdictions,” although it failed to mention or discuss those cases. Id. at 673.”